Digest Author: A.

Rodriguez
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue.
Heirs of Prodon vs Heirs of Alvarez (2013) When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the
Petitioner: Sofia Torres, et al existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best
Respondent: Nicanor Satsatin, et al Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be
admitted even without accounting for the original. The action for quieting of title may
DOCTRINE: The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a written be based on the fact that a deed is invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable.
document are the subject of the inquiry. In an action for quieting of title based on the The terms of the writing may or may not be material to an action for quieting of title,
inexistence of a deed of sale with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on depending on the ground alleged by the plaintiff. For instance, when an action for
the title of a property, therefore, the Best Evidence Rule does not apply, and the quieting of title is based on the unenforceability of a contract for not complying with
defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other than the original the Statute of Frauds, Article 1403 of the Civil Code specifically provides that
document. evidence of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary
FACTS: evidence of its contents. There is then no doubt that the Best Evidence Rule will come
into play. It is not denied that this action does not involve the terms or contents of the
1. The Heirs of Alvares claim that their parents were the registered owners of a deed of sale with right to repurchase. The principal issue raised by the respondents
lot; that their parents had been in possession of the property during their as the plaintiffs, which Prodon challenged head on, was whether or not the deed of
lifetime; that upon their parents deaths, they had continued the possession sale with right to repurchase, duly executed by the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr., had
of the property as heirs, paying the real property taxes due thereon. really existed. The lower courts should have simply addressed and determined
2. However, they could not locate the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. xxx, whether or not the "existence" and "execution" of the deed as the facts in issue had
but the original copy of TCT No. xxx on file with the RD of Manila was intact been proved by preponderance of evidence.
and that the original copy contained an entry stating that the property had
been sold to Prodon subject to the right of repurchase. But that the entry had However, Prodon did not preponderantly establish the existence and due execution of
been maliciously done by Prodon because the deed of sale with right to the deed of sale with right to repurchase. Good trial tactics still required Prodon to
repurchase covering the property did not exist. establish and explain the loss of the original of the deed of sale with right to
3. Consequently, they filed for a complaint of quieting title praying that the repurchase to establish the genuineness and due execution of the deed. Camilon,
entry be cancelled, and that Prodon be adjudged liable for damages. one of her witnesses, testified that he had given the original to her lawyer, Atty.
4. Prodon answered by claiming that the late Alvarez, Sr. had executed a deed Anacleto Lacanilao, but that he (Camilon) could not anymore retrieve the original
of sale with right to repurchase and that she had become the absolute owner because Atty. Lacanilao had been recuperating from his heart ailment. Such evidence
of the property due to its non-repurchase within the given 6-month period. without showing the inability to locate the original from among Atty. Lacanilaos
5. RTC: For Prodon. It opined that although the deed itself could not be belongings by himself or by any of his assistants or representatives was inadequate.
presented as evidence in court, its contents could nevertheless be proved by
secondary evidence in accordance with Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of In contrast, the records contained ample indicia of the improbability of the existence
Court, upon proof of its execution or existence and of the cause of its of the deed. The medical history showing the number of very serious ailments the late
unavailability being without bad faith. (Secondary evidence considered: Maximo Alvarez, Sr. had been suffering from rendered it highly improbable for him to
testimony of Prodon as verified by a notary, Primary Entry Book of RD of travel from Manila all the way to Meycauayan, Bulacan, where Prodon and Camilon
Manila showing an entry Nature of Contract: Sale with Right to Repurchase; were then residing in order only to negotiate and consummate the sale of the
Executed by: Maximo S. Alvarez; In favor: Margarita Prodon) property. Moreover, annotation on TCT No. xxx of the deed of sale with right to
6. CA reversed. repurchase and the entry in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds did not
themselves establish the existence of the deed. This registration alone of the deed
ISSUE: was not conclusive proof of its authenticity or its due execution by the registered
W/N the best evidence rule is applicable - N owner of the property, which was precisely the issue in this case. Also, respondents
RULING + RATIO: remaining in the peaceful possession of the property was further convincing evidence
No. The Best Evidence Rule as not applicable herein. demonstrating that the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. did not execute the deed of sale with
The CA and the RTC both misapplied the Best Evidence Rule to this case. The Best right to repurchase. Otherwise, Prodon would have herself asserted and exercised
Evidence Rule (Sec. 3, Rule 130) stipulates that in proving the terms of a written her right to take over the property, legally and physically speaking, upon the expiration
document the original of the document must be produced in court. The rule excludes in 1976 of the repurchase period.
any evidence other than the original writing to prove the contents thereof, unless the
offeror proves: (a) the existence or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and We concur with the CA that the respondents preponderantly, proved that the deed of
destruction of the original, or the reason for its non-production in court; and (c) the sale with right to repurchase executed by the late Maximo Alvarez, Sr. did not exist in
absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original fact.
can be attributed.
DISPOSITION: Denied.
Digest Author: A. Rodriguez